Why does Type A free agency exist? Who does it benefit? Who does it hurt? Can it be fixed? Discussions of these questions and how they affect the Quest For Relief below.

Who benefits?

Now, I'm probably not going to say this better than Keith Law, but here I go, anyway.

Type A free agency exists primarily to drag down free agent salaries, period. Regardless of whether it provides fair compensation to a team, promotes competitive balance or gives a player's current team a better chance to keep him, the reason it is in the Collective Bargaining Agreement is because it reduces salaries. If the value of Player TypeA's production is $5 million, and you, a GM, perceive that your draft slot is worth $1 million, you'll reduce the amount you're willing to give TypeA by that amount.

Some writers have said, "Well, the players should just scrap this compensation system if it means that solid players will end up without jobs." If they could, they would. Law (from the article linked above):

The draft-pick anachronism will probably be eliminated from free agency only if the owners -- who have no reason to want the picks eliminated -- can convince the union to agree to a hard slotting system in the Rule 4 Draft, something the union, at the behest of player agents, has been unwilling to grant in past negotiations.

He goes on to cite how the rules as written protect draftees at the expense of free agents. This is something I can get behind to some degree, since, as he points out:

[They] typically come from modest means and [they] more than likely will earn the majority of the money they make in baseball in their initial signing bonus.

Fair enough, but from a competitive baseball perspective, it's less than ideal. Currently, top prospects drop down in the draft all the time because of "signing problems". (As a close to home example, we basically have no business having Rick Porcello, but we were willing to shell out to sign him.) But I can also respect the union for protecting its youngest players.

Whether the compensation rules benefit large or small market teams is a bit of a push, in my opinion. Small teams certainly benefit from reduced salaries, but probably less than people think when it comes to the actual compensation. As a limiting example, consider the case of two teams, the BigSox and the SmallRates. The BigSox build themselves mostly through FA signings, and the SmallRates solely through drafting. Every year, the BigSox sign the maximum number of Type A players that they're eligible to. At the end of these players' contracts, if the Type A's are still good, they'll be compensated. This will happen with some regularity. To be better compensated than the BigSox, the SmallRates will likely have to draft multiple players that will turn into Type A's every year.

Who gets screwed?

The players, in general, but who most of all? One good archetype would be Jason Varitek. Since the Type A ranking looks backward at the last two years, but doesn't project forward, he ends up as Type A, in spite of a rough season last year. Being a 37-year-old catcher, noone expects him to improve much. He's worth more than league minimum, but noone thinks he's worth that plus what they perceive their draft pick to be worth.

The other archetype would be Juan Cruz; he was a solid middle reliever for the last two years, but was a bit inconsistent before that. He might be entering his prime, but more to the point, he's probably only going to pitch 60 innings a year. Giving up a draft pick for 60 innings of work means he had better be lights out for those 60 innings. Not sure if you'll get that? Don't sign Juan Cruz.

The teams that get screwed are the ones that need relief pitching. (Hey! That's us!) Your lost draft pick doesn't care whether you got 150 games of Mark Teixeira or 60 innings of Juan Cruz.

Can it be fixed?

Sure. Let's assume that its a necessary evil, the least unacceptable alternative for the Players Union. The biggest problem with Type A status is not the idea so much as the implementation. Currently, players are only judged against others at their  position. Starting pitchers vs. each other, Relievers vs. each other, Catchers, etc. The problem, of course, is that a really good reliever does not provide the same value as a really good position player.

The sabermetric community has devised composite statistics which attempt to put all players on the same scale (WARP-3, others). Use one, select the Type A's and B's based on the top 20% and to 40%, and to hell with what position they play. If they're all position players, fine. That should fix the Juan Cruz Problem.

The Jason Varitek problem can be addressed by choosing the top 20% and 40% based on a forward projection of whatever composite stat is used.

The Quest for Relief

From this and some of my other posts, you may have gathered that I'm not a fan of trying to sign a FA bullpen. Judging by his draft record, I think DD freels the same way. By and large, relievers are relievers because they're not good enough to start. Painful as it is to admit, Zach Miner is probably not an exception.(...but I want to believe...) Draft loads of pitchers, and some of them will end up starting, and some won't, but they might be good enough to do relief. Another option is to grab guys like Edwin Jackson, who weren't good enough as starters to merit Type A/B, but could be used as swingmen.

Shameless Editorializing

On balance, I like the Type A/B nonsense, though I wish they'd fix the implementation as I laid out above. It makes trades more interesting, and it opens up a way to build up draft picks by taking on rentals of guys like Matt Holliday. It makes the Rule 4 more interesting, and it de facto protects up and coming players. Could be worse.

Thanks for reading.